Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14365/5549
Title: | Ablation of Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia with Focal Cryoablation, Compared with Radiofrequency Ablation: Single-Center Experience | Authors: | Topaloğlu, Caner Fici, Francesco Van de Borne, Philippe Taşkın, Uğur Doğduş, Mustafa Saygı, Serkan Tengiz, İstemihan |
Keywords: | Atrioventricular Nodal Reentry Tachycardia Cryosurgery Radiofrequency Ablation Supraventricular Tachycardia Catheter Outcomes Age |
Publisher: | Arquivos Brasileiros Cardiologia | Abstract: | Background: The ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) with cryoablation is an alternative to radiofrequency (RF) ablation in patients due to the low risk of total atrioventricular block. An increase in early-late recurrences after cryoablation is reported as an important disadvantage. Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare the acute procedural success and the long-term recurrence rates of patients, with AVNRT who underwent methods. Methods: 73 patients with AVNRT were included in the study: 32 with cryoablation and 41 with RF ablation. There was no statistically significant difference between acute procedural success in methods. The ablation procedure was performed by an operator experienced in arrhythmology. The choice of RF or cryoablation was made in the electrophysiology laboratory based on the material already available during the procedure. After the procedure, the patients were evaluated every 3 months for 2 years in polyclinic control. The significance level adopted in the statistical analysis was 5%. Results: The 2 groups of patients were homogeneous. The fluoroscopy time (p<0.001) was shorter, but atrium-his (p=0.004) and his-ventricular (p=0.015) times were longer in the cryoablation group. There was no significant difference, in terms of acute procedural success, post-procedure jump without a single echo, and presence of echo and jump. Conclusions: Cryoablation requires less fluoroscopy time and is a safe non-inferior alternative to RF ablation in patients with AVNRT. The risk of AV block is a significant problem with the use of RF energy, making it less suitable for use in young and physically active patients. | URI: | https://doi.org/10.36660/abc.20230604i https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14365/5549 |
ISSN: | 0066-782X 1678-4170 |
Appears in Collections: | PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / PubMed Indexed Publications Collection WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / WoS Indexed Publications Collection |
Show full item record
CORE Recommender
Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.